Main menu

You are here

The counter terminology to Holocaust Denial should be Holocaust Belief

Published by carolyn on Sat, 2018-07-28 15:53

Special guests are seated at the actual entrance to the former concentration camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau, colorfully lit up as a show-biz production for the 70th Anniversary remembrance ceremony in 2015.

by Carolyn Yeager

WHAT IS THE HOLOCAUST? It's a belief, nothing more. If you try to get hold of it, touch it, find where it exists, you discover you can't and it doesn't. It's words, it's stories, it's narrative. It's more similar to religion than to history. The 'history' has been built up after the fact around the religion, or belief, to give it greater plausibility.

The Holocaust is a few photos from a few very selective places taken in 1945 after the Allies gained total control of the air and bombed the hell out of everything in Germany. They purposely disrupted/destroyed all communications and deliveries by road or rail, killed even farmers working in their fields, preventing food and medicines from reaching those in need. Many of those in need were in the detainment camps, where even the clean water infrastructure was destroyed by Allied bombers, such as happened at Bergen-Belsen where the worst pictures were taken. Naturally, epidemics broke out that the Germans were helpless to prevent or deal with. The result of this end-of-war bombfest was photographed and called genocide—not genocide by the Allies, which it was, but genocide by the Germans!

Have 6 million Jewish victims of this “genocide” ever been accounted for? Not even close. This number is simply repeated in newspapers, on television and in commentaries hundreds, or thousands, of times a day all over the world, thereby given incredible reinforcement as an undisputed “fact.” But the real fact is that it is disputed, and very powerfully disputed. Many documents are collected in this book alone that pull the rug out from under that number, showing it to have symbolic meaning for Jews, and nothing more. It was never meant to be taken literally until a huge case was undertaken to blame the defeated German foe for massive war crimes and sole responsibility for World War II.

When it comes to the fabled documentation, what the believers offer is mostly dishonest atrocity propaganda churned out by intelligence agencies and partisans during the war, faked documents and forced confessions produced for the “War Crimes” military tribunals after the war, and witness testimony that was never allowed to be questioned or cross-examined in court.

What the so-called deniers offer (their term for themselves is Revisionist) is a remarkable library of scholarly documentation called the “Holocaust Handbooks.” You don't have to read all these books, or even one of them, to understand that the Holocaust is a religious-political belief, not a real historically documented event of the claimed proportions. But the books are available and highly informative, some with free access on the Internet, and more are in the works based on continuing research and investigation.

So I propose we adopt the term Holocaust believer for all those who automatically believe what they read in the media about holocaust and are shocked when they hear someone say they don't believe it. Deborah Lipstadt is called "one of the world's leading Holocaust scholars with a special expertise in Holocaust denial" by the Jewish school that she works for--even though she has admitted, "I do my research on the internet." As is typical with believers, her 'expertise' is accepted without critical investigation by both the media and general public-- and even in academia. But Lipstadt doesn't know anything about what happened to Jews during WWII other than what little she herself has read from Holocaust believers, and that's why she refuses to debate with Holocaust deniers on principle. The only reason she gives for her refusal is that all Holocaust deniers are antisemites, no exceptions, and the Holocaust is a priori the "factual, objective truth" and not open for debate. Defending that 'objective truth' will not be attempted.

Weak though the story is, all the believers out there just keep believing because they never hear anything else from the media-United Nations-global-world order conspiratorial control, with the power of World Jewry over government institutions thrown in for good measure. They should therefore be called what they are.

Category

Comments

That quote by Lipstadt is ridiculous. It sounds like the cry of a child, "If there is no Santa Claus, what else can anyone believe in then?" Of course, the Holocaust is debatable. Everything is debatable, including what people consider "obvious." Is there a God? Are Jews a race or a religion? Are White people a race? Is the current German government illegitimate? Was there a Holocaust? All of this is open for debate and -- should be! How else do we grow? How else do we learn? Stifling intellectual inquiry means turning human beings into mental fossils. Holocaustianity is a religion and an ideology, and if your brain can only function with an ideology, why have a brain at all?

Deborah Lipstadt is a pushy but weak person. She wouldn't debate David Irving. She wouldn't debate either you or I, either. In a fair, properly-run debate forum she would be crushed and she knows it. She really only talks about antisemitism, never about the actual 'holocaust.'

I like to think about this scenario: A person says to me, 'Are you really a holocaust denier?' I answer, 'Yes, are you a holocaust believer? Then answer me this ...' and I ask them a question about the holocaust which they cannot answer because they don't know anything about it, but only believe in it.

Lipstadt is a complete chickenshit. She likes to present herself as a lone, brave voice going to battle David and Goliath style---but she has the full backing of World Jewry and government.

The Jews have been trying to remove Arthur Butz from Northwestern for decades. So Lipstadt enters "the lions' den" so to speak; she gives a speech, but doesn't debate Butz, much less even acknowledge him. The small room was packed wih Hillel students but some Palestinians and others turned up to giggle.

'Pandering' is not a counter to 'denial', nor is it free of insulting (interpreted as hateful) overtones.

What we need is something consistent that cannot be attacked and that everyone is comfortable with.

When the general public continually (consistently) hears the word 'belief' used by non-believers in conjunction with 'holocaust', that will drive home the idea that it is based on belief rather than historical evidence. It is then logical to ask them why they believe it or what their belief is based on. This where their fear of debate comes in.

Those of us who are not fully grounded in revisionist scholarship should not let themselves be pulled in too deep, but should hold to the ground they are sure of. Don't let the other party take charge of the questioning or you could actually lose the debate! That is unacceptable! The word Aryan is not helpful when it comes to this subject, btw.

1. The paper: Thank you for a good common sense article. However, Lady Michèle Renouf once found the correct label for the adepts of "Midrach" (basically, how to reinvent history in order to serve the "higher" purposes of allegedly chosen people): "Holocaustianity".

2. Lipstadt: one would like to reset this droid on its correct railing: Indeed! Anything is debatable until proven without the shadow of a doubt. It is known by the French as: "Ne pas se soumettre à l'argument d'autorité" -- basically never to accept forced beliefs. In clear: hearsay, wailing and shouting and playing on the emotional register will get you nowhere, Lipstadt.

Thanks. I don't think Lady Renouf was the originator of that term. I don't know who was, it might have been Professor Faurisson, but in any case it is a play on Christianity so conjures up the religious aspect of the myth and in that sense, belief. A great word, but it can't be used as a counter term to Holocaust Denier.

'Believer' is simple and easily understood, with the correct connotations.

It was Michèle indeed, in her speech delivered in Tehran on Dec 2006. For the record, my other friend Faurisson did à good one there at the same venue, stating, at the beginning of his own speech: « I am not a believer »

Okay, I certainly accept that unless I hear otherwise. Brilliant of her, I must say.

Professor Faurisson wrote me a nice note and confirmed what you say about his use of the word 'believer':

Congratulations, dear Carolyn, for that summary, for your battle since, at least, 2010, and also for your smile.

I very often call them "believers".

They call me "a professional liar, a falsifier and a forger of history".

They refuse to give one example or one proof. They say they

do not need to. They add that, since I contravene the "Gayssot law" (the "Faurisson law") of 1990, I am not only an offender but also, ipso facto, a LIAR.

Best wishes. Robert FAURISSON, July, 29, 2018, 9h02

10, rue de Normandie, F-03200 VICHY

This I certainly treasure, from a giant of a man whom I admire so deeply and am so grateful he is still among us. What a fighter!!

Wow. I thought that photo with the reconstruction of the Auschwitz entryway put in place of the altar in a church-like setting was a Photoshop parody, but the caption says it's real. Just the perfect example of brainwashing and blind belief.

I can understand why you would have thought it to be photoshop, so I looked for proof and easily found this picture and caption at The Guardian:

Polish born Holocaust survivor and President of the International Auschwitz Committee Roman Kent delivers a speech in front of survivors and world leader at a tent erected in front of the entrance of the former Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz-Birkenau. Photograph: ODD ANDERSEN/AFP/Getty Images

You can see that they erected a tent over the area, but it is the real buiding/location. In the lead image on my post, the guests are wearing coats and hats because they were outdoors at night even though under a tent. The lighting created the special color effects.

I actually watched this ceremony on video, I think as it was taking place. It's probably still on Youtube. But I watched the whole thing on my computer screen, and was skyping with Eric Hunt as it progressed. I even watched as they walked (or were bussed) to the main memorial monument in the area of the crematoriums and placed lighted candles there. That was a pretty haphazard event, in the snow. I do recall President Kent was quite a Jewish showman; he wailed and cried and shouted during his speech trying to empasize 'Never again.'

This was the particular anniversary that many Hollywood celebrities took part in making "special", which I wrote about here, bc they moaned that there would never be this many survivors again. Steven Spielberg was in this audience; the camera kept panning to him. They brought in as many survivors as they could, paying all their expenses. You can see them in the audience here, wearing their striped identifying scarves:

If this thing turns around it will be because of your great work. I, too, think we should call the holocaust for what it is, belief. In effect to believe in the holocaust is to be in denial of the truth. In that respect, from a Christian perspective, to foster belief in the holocaust as it is now understood by the 'believers' is antichrist. I think the false witness against the German people and turning the genocide of the German people upside down to refer rather to the Jews is antichrist, or holocaustianity.

They are really taken with some of the more bizarre stories which were promulgated at the Nuremberg Trials, as described in Carlos Whitlock Porter's work.

The thread which features that meme is here. The younger generation in the movement, it seems, are quite conversant with Revisionism. Many of these are Generation Y, Z. For some reason, they are more sceptical than their baby boomer forebears. I think Holocaust belief (as you put it) is spiralling downwards into an unprecedented decline, especially amongst the young.

I think we give too much credit to the young. It was the older (boomer) generation that did all the work to bring this information out and to them. They are the recipients of it. And they've had the benefit of the Internet.

Who in the Y-Z generations is doing any serious work in this area? I don't know of any, besides memes and jokes which I don't think are going to carry the day. IMO, it would be a shame if the 'Holocaust' just fizzles out, without our learning the lessons we need to learn from it about the oppositional nature of the jew.

This world and this country (USA) are so screwed up. Sometimes I wonder, because I wouldn't know if a boatload of other humans already made a big deal out of it, if the term Holocaust denier was selected because it might be able to displace/divert attention from/whatever the common regard for Jews in the Christian world as Christ deniers. And they have so successfully co-opted Christianity long with everything else they co-opted that many Christians are saying Jesus was never the Jewish messiah to begin with, that Jews have their own deal with God--so send money to Israel and make sure your representative in the U.S. Congress knows he better protct the Jews. It just never ends, the way humans act so effed in the head and full of crap, so easily mislead and prone to emotional reasoning. Anyway, I leanred a lot about the real history of WWII and Jews and the Holocaust and all that from visiting your website, Ms Yeager. Thank you. It's too bad things are as they are and the Jews control public perception or humans like you would be more properly appreciated.

The Darkmoon blog didn't reference me but actually copied John Friend's blog, who referenced me. But neither understood what I am trying to get across in my article.

I'm not saying that “Holocaust denial” is more properly understood as “Holocaust belief,” as John says I am. What I want is a consistent term used for 'believers', as they consistently use 'denier.' And I think 'Believer' is the perfect one. So Holocaust Believer is the opposite of Holocaust Denier, not the same as.

I have seen the term Holocaust believer in use a few times now by my regular readers (like Al Milligan) and it looks great! It's just perfect! I intend to continue promoting it and hope for the best.

Not sure what you mean by not reference you. The Darkmoon article states, "In reality, “Holocaust denial” is more properly understood as “Holocaust belief,” as Carolyn Yeager has recently argued in an excellent article published on her website." I didn't see any quotation from John Friend there or even a reference to him in the article.

I understood your original article. It made and makes perfect sense to me, too, but I just saw your name listed beside the idea of "Holocaust belief" in Darkmoon's recent article at her website, and sent you the link. I did not take the time this morning to understand the context. But now that I have -- boy! Did they misunderstand you! Zowie! Wow! No, I get your idea. You're trying to create a meme that will get at the heart of the Holocaust issue as a counterpoint to (((their))) meme, "holocaust denial." (((They))) suffer from Holocaust belief; we do not believe (because we find a great paucity of evidence for it) and thus know that the holocaust narrative is make-believe. I'm like an atheist when it comes to the narrative, which requires belief. I am not a denier of anything because there's isn't anything to deny! Some logicians assert that he who asserts the positive has the burden of proof. This rule applies to those who even use the word "Holocaust." It's almost like a logical fallacy known as argument from authority. "(((We))) use the word the Holocaust because (((we))) say it exists. Just our asserting this claim should be sufficient for you to "believe" that what we're speaking of is what's true." Such notions or justifications do defy logic.

I'm currently reading Jacques Ellul's "The Subversion of Christianity," and he shows how the passing centuries since Christ easily turned spiritual beliefs into religious ones, which then morphed into ordinary moral systems, which then morphed into nationwide, even global laws, all of it contrary to Christ's teachings (including war and violence). He also shows how ideas of "the sacred" do not remain static. There is always a war amidst mankind's races and religions over what is sacred and who possesses the right rites. Holcaustianity is the new rising religion and it needs to be slaughtered for the mere fallacious belief that it is.

The entirety of the Darkmoon post was picked up (copied) from John Friend's blog. It was written by John, not by anyone at Darkmoon. That's what I mean. John linked to my website in his article but Darkmoon didn't keep it linked.

I think you're a regular at Darkmoon, right? Just for the record, I don't like the site. Never look at it. You can't get educated at a site like that, it's too haphazard.

Some logicians assert that he who asserts the positive has the burden of proof. This rule applies to those who even use the word "Holocaust."

I agree with that - they do have the burden of proof. And they have spectacularly failed to prove their claims; that's why they won't debate, and famously declared after the 1980's that there would be no more court cases because their witnesses could not withstand cross-examination.

Holcaustianity is the new rising religion and it needs to be slaughtered for the mere fallacious belief that it is.

In the same way, they want to slaughter "denial" and all revisionism. But neither side can get rid of the other. We have to carry on without that hope, by believing in ourselves and our truth. The happier we are with ourselves, the more fun we are having, the more attractive our cause will appear to others. That's the only way.

Just for clarity. No, I'm not a regular at Darkmoon. I made one comment there three years ago and got slammed for it. I told the truth. Somebody at Darkmoon had said Voltaire said, “To determine the true rulers of any society, all you must do is ask yourself this question: Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?” Alternative news websites or conspiracy theory websites frequently cite the quotation and always the writer or commenter erroneously attributes it to Voltaire. I reported that the quotation was from Kevin Alfred Strom, not Voltaire. My comment was one sentence long, sharp and to the point. The administrator of Darkmoon gave me a very snarky reply intended to cast doubt on my veracity and terminate my continuing to add my voice to the website!! I can laugh now, but what a shock it was to me then. How could somebody get upset about facts and what's true? It's a truth movement, isn't it? Can't someone just do the research to verify the facts? No, it's much easier to be snarky and just repeat an error as if the mere repetition of it is a sure sign of what's true.

I once had tried to learn from the Darkmoon website over the years, but I gave it up as a lost cause just before it went on a mysterious and long hiatus. When it returned, I suddenly saw it for what it was -- opinion merely and constantly changing opinion, too. I don't have a good word for it besides pablum. It also has a gang mentality like Incogman. I re-visit it only when I'm bored with the regular online content I follow, which isn't very frequent, but I was briefly bored this morning. Finding your name on that website broke that spell, which gave me a reason to notify you about it. And I hadn't read the article when I did notify you. Only reading your later comment about it on your website gave me the incentive to do so.

Thanks for your excellent (thorough) clarification. I can say I had the very same experience with the Darkmoon site several years ago. I really hesitate to say how many - maybe 5? 7? Time becomes a blur. It was also in the comment section, where I tried to stand up against the anti-Adolf Hitler statements posted by a 'regular' there (or maybe it was inaccuracy like you experienced) -- he seemed almost to be the moderator or administrator. Your term "gang mentality" is perfect for how it felt to me because some others rushed to join with him. I also finally decided to 'stay away.'

I also relate to your admission of visiting certain websites very rarely, usually when I am feeling the need for an "idea." But what brings that particular site to mind? It's almost always that I find something relevant for me there that was just posted! In this case, you found my name and this article mentioned there. Fascinating, isn't it.

Carolyn, the 2nd pragraph in your article is an excellent place to start when talking to believers. Most can understand that a nation would go into chaos after non-stop bombings and strafings. No trains, cars, trucks, or even horse drawn buggies were allowed to travel. Water treatment plants were destroyed. A believer might then be more open to hearing about fake shower room/gas chambers and hundreds of stacked bodies being burned to ash in a few hours, without firewood, outside, uncovered, in the snow and rain. That the Allies were responsible for most of the camp deaths is an inescapable conclusion.